14 April 2016

Pakistan: Imperial Blowback and the Shapur Effect

In 1757 the British defeated a joint Mughal-French army at
the Battle of Plassey. This set them on a course to dominate the whole of the
Indian Subcontinent forever changing its history.

The British Empire like all empires was ultimately rooted in
racism and led to the massive social upheaval of an already fragile cultural
arrangement. Famines and wars ensued as well as the famous 1857 uprising/mutiny
which was remembered for many years after. In addition there were incidents
like the 1919 Amritsar Massacre in which the British mercilessly killed over
1000 innocent civilians, many of them women and children, a mass-murder far
greater than any the Taliban or any other regional group has ever perpetrated. Ironically
Colonel Dyer who commanded the massacre in good imperial fashion used mostly
foreign troops to do the dirty work, Asian versus Asian in service of the
empire. Little did the Gurkha, Balochi and Pashtun soldiers know the British
were just as likely to massacre their families in the same fashion.

Even the racist Secretary of State for War, Winston Churchill
condemned it. The man who said he hated Indians, called them beastly and
insisted they were not fit to rule themselves felt this act went too far. Of
course during World War II Churchill himself would play an administrative role
in furthering a famine that led to some 3 million deaths. He viewed it as an
almost necessary reduction in the population and would not interrupt the war
effort to put together famine relief. The sad part is that while India always
wrestled with famines the British economic and administrative system exacerbated
them leading to deaths on a massive scale. It can be fairly easily demonstrated
that many of the famines were not just due to bureaucratic shortsightedness or
honest error, but a deliberate policy and a murderous one.

While we would never dare to excuse the actions of the
Taliban or any other terrorist group which targets civilians and while cultural
conservatives groan when the point is raised, it must be said...

Imperialism and Colonialism helped create the conditions that
have led to the current murderous anarchy at work in the Middle East, Africa
and certainly in the Asian Subcontinent.

The British played the Muslims and Hindus against each other.
Divide and conquer. And when they left after World War II the result was
partition. To be sure, the British alone cannot be blamed for this disaster but
they played their part.

Since then the West has continued to interfere in the affairs
of the Subcontinent. It has worked with and against both India and Pakistan and
has at times destabilised their societies. When East Pakistan broke away in
1971, the US continued to support Pakistan against the newly formed Bangladesh
and its Indian ally. This support came even while Pakistan was all but committing
genocide against the people of Bangladesh. Tragically Bangladesh/East Pakistan
was itself an artificial division of Old Bengal, another result and antagonism
bred of empire.

Pakistan in particular has been the subject of manipulation.
As the British faded into the background, the US stepped to the fore and has
constantly interfered in Pakistani politics. With ally Zia-ul-Haq the United
States worked to destabilise Afghanistan, draw the Soviets into invading and
foment a massive war that resulted in a million Afghan dead and some five
million refugees.

Pakistan's society was greatly destabilised by the refugee
crisis and the fact that the Pashtun people are split by the Durand Line
(another legacy of Empire) has led to an unstable border and agitation among
the Pashtun people.

During the latter part of the Cold War the Pakistanis were
backed by the United States and India was often opposed. The countries of the
Subcontinent were caught in a tug-of-war between the power politics and
tensions of the US-USSR and China. The Sino-Soviet Split and the US
rapprochement with China greatly affected the position of the Subcontinent.

Of course the Soviet-Afghan War flooded the region with
militants and jihadists, it helped to import Wahhabism and empower the Deobandi
sect, its regional close cousin, a movement born as a reaction to British
imperial rule. With the departure of the Soviets and the collapse of the
Najibullah regime in Kabul, Afghanistan erupted into a vicious civil war
between the Mujahideen warlords.

Some of these same figures once backed and supported by the
United States would morph into al Qaeda.

And then there are the drugs. We could write many things
about the opium trade. In many ways the secret Afghan War was a repeat of what
took place in Indochina. Drugs were a means of funding the clandestine war and
not a few of the mujahideen leaders doubled as drug lords. This was known by
the CIA and even in many cases supported. While this is shocking and even
incredible to many it is well documented and in fact nothing new. It's an old
story and a repeating pattern that lives on to today. From Laos, to Afghanistan
to the Contras, Panama and now Mexico the US government and in particular its intelligence
apparatus has been involved in facilitating the drug trade to fund black
operations.

When Blair proclaimed that they would bomb the Taliban's
poppy fields many just laughed. Ironically once the Taliban seized control they
worked to eradicate opium production but once ousted they fell back into the
old pattern for funding war.

Of course Pakistan itself supported the rise of the Taliban.
The US had left them with a catastrophe and it was greatly resented. Many in
the Pakistani establishment know the US is not a true ally and is just using
them. This has only become all too clear over time and many Pakistanis today
feel absolutely betrayed. This fact is never conveyed in the Western media
where Pakistan is always painted as treacherous and perhaps even... the real
enemy. Not a few in the US would willingly go to war with Pakistan.

The instability, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
expanding power of India meant Pakistan had to do something to bring stability
to Afghan society. The Taliban, a movement which largely grew out of the
refugee camps in Pakistan brought a harsh and brutal stability to the bulk of
Afghan society and for this reason was initially welcomed by many.

A strong Pashtun regime meant peace on Pakistan's border
which is what they wanted more than anything.

But the US wanted access to Central Asia. There were wells to
be drilled, pipelines to run, mineral resources to exploit and a Great Game to
be played. It couldn't wait, Russia was down and China was on the rise. The US
even courted the Taliban at one point and tried to cut a deal. But then with
September 11th, a new chapter was opened and the means would not be
in terms of wooing but of war.

The ongoing and seemingly endless US-Afghan War has also
destabilised Pakistan and has spilled over into their borders. The original
Taliban has morphed into several versions, some of which are led by former US
allies such as Hekmatyar and Haqqani. This blog has reported in the past that
Haqqani shook Reagan's hand in the White House. Apparently this claim is
disputed, some arguing it wasn't Haqqani but Yunus Khalis in the White House,
but without a doubt Hekmatyar visited Thatcher in London. He too was invited to
Washington but apparently didn't want to meet with Reagan.

Whether Haqqani shook Reagan's hand or not, the US heartily
supported Haqqani during the 1980s even while he was aiding bin Laden in the
formation of what would become al Qaeda. Mohammad Yunus Khalis who is
supposedly the mujahideen commander in the pictures with Reagan nevertheless later
became an ardent supporter of and collaborator with the Taliban.

Either way Reagan and Thatcher shook hands with militants who
later would become elements of the wider umbrella that is known as the Taliban
and were certainly allies of al Qaeda. The West supported these elements, armed
and in some cases helped to train them.

While the US public was largely ignorant of these ironies and
hypocrisies the Pakistanis were not. Under threat they were forced once more (in
September 2001) to collaborate with a US project that in the end would lead to
their own instability and place their nation into a precarious position.

Then the US began to make overtures to India. Was this done
to deliberately offend and counter Pakistan? Probably not, though the US
certainly has no regard for whatever regime sits in Islamabad. India however is
part of a grander US strategy against China and for that reason the US under
George W. Bush began to cultivate a close friendship which included a nuclear
deal.

This has outraged both the Pakistani Establishment and the
Pakistani Street.

Not only does it anger them in terms of geopolitics but it
makes the Pakistani government look foolish and corrupt. It plays right into
the narratives of the militants about the whorish nature of the West and the
complicity of the secular regimes in the Muslim world. Remember India is
Pakistan's mortal enemy and Afghanistan is not the only flash point. There are
issues in Central Asia as well. India's cultural and economic influence is wide
ranging and both nations play a part in the Central Asian Great Game.

But of course the real flashpoint is in Kashmir. The Islamic
militants involved in fighting India have to no one's great surprise found
common cause with elements of the Taliban. Pakistan has become a dark and
confusing world of government and military factions warring and scheming
against one another, elements of the ISI supporting the Kashmiri and Taliban
fighters while other elements of the government opposing them. The situation is
somewhat reminiscent of the Deep State in Turkey, except I think the Pakistani
situation is even more confusing as there are elements in the military that are
opposed to Pakistan's secular heritage.

These events over the past 30-40 years have led a massive
upsurge in conservative and militant Islam. They see the US and its Muslim
collaborators as bringers of poison and death. The impact on these societies
has been staggering. Afghanistan was once a relatively liberal society. The
countryside was conservative to be sure, but the cities were modern and (for
good or ill) had largely embrace modernism. The same was true with Iran. But
there has been a massive anti-Western pendulum swing and in Pakistan the people
have taken it personally and some have grown very hostile to the West.

In the middle of all this are the many Christians who were
converted under British rule. Sadly the Church came with the Empire and the two
are forever associated. In much of the Muslim world the West (whether true or
not) is perceived as Christian. Of course many Westerners would have it so. But
for many in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, Western Christianity is
identified with the culture. They are Sacralists and assume the model when they
view the West.

Thus Christianity (to them) is represented by the likes of
Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Ellen DeGeneres and Bruce Jenner. But then we must also
include the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld, figures like John Hagee, Donald Trump
and all the cultural filth and violence these groups represent. Christianity to
them is imperialism, war, drones and bombs.

It is a tragedy, a shame and an outrage.

For both theological and practical reasons Christians should
decry such identifications of the United States being a Christian nation. It's
not true in any sense of the word.

Pakistani Christians whether they like it or not are
associated with the West, the house of oppression, the house of cultural evil
and economic manipulation, the regimes of Britain and the USA and certainly the
drones.

The US can talk all day about killing civilians and terrorism
but they have waged a terror war from the air for many years and have killed
thousands, and at the very least hundreds of civilians along the border region.
This has both traumatised and enraged these populations. The Pashtuns in many
ways and with some justification believe the US war in both nations is squarely
and specifically aimed at them and their culture.

Christians are viewed as traitors, a potential fifth column.
Their movement undermines society and brings in western ideas. If their
daughters convert to Christianity they will become loud assertive women,
prancing around in a miniskirt and end up denying Allah. Their sons will work
with the West and enrich themselves on the exploitation of Muslim peoples.

Whether true or not, this is the perception. Western
involvement has greatly endangered all Christians in Muslim lands.

Militant Islam's retaliations in Europe are likewise expressions
of rage against oppressive empires but include another layer of frustration
over socio-economic and religious conditions. They are a conquered people, now
imported as a type of second-class citizens. Christianity teaches we as God's
people are to endure such sufferings. Islam being Satanic in origin promotes
honour, power and revenge and its adherents pushed by economic and social
failure embrace these aspects of the religion with fervour, finding meaning in
holy war and martyrdom... not Christian idea of martyrdom, suffering to the
glory of God and in emulation of Christ, but martyrdom in killing and being
killed by the infidel in the midst of holy struggle.

Many young men living in Islamic communities are affected by
economic woes in another very painful manner. If they cannot get themselves
established they have little hope of marrying. The European exile and migrant
communities have become very conservative as a means of cohesion. They are
under economic distress and are in a culture that is very seductive. The strict
confines of their culture mean that many men are left with no hope and are not
a little frustrated by it. In Europe this has led to a lot of bitterness
manifesting itself in rather poor social conduct toward Western women who are
viewed as temptresses. In Afghanistan it has led to revival of other
perversities.

Islamic militarism is a radical form of salvation by works,
not all that different from the various false forms of Dominionist Christianity
which teach godliness is wealth and power, thus domination over others. This
too is evil. War is just politics by other means, an extension of political
power that takes place when the talking stops, or sometimes to stop the other
side from talking. Sacralism sanctifies the nation and its wars and under such
a paradigm a civilisational clash is inevitable. Christians will suffer in
Islamic lands and vice-versa.

Due to the violence stirred and generated by the Pseudo-Christian
Anglo-American empires, these believers now suffer a terrible backlash and many
have been forced to flee and now live as refugees in Thailand among other
places. Thailand is easy to get to but has proved to be no haven.

They are suffering from the Shapur Effect. Like the
Christians of Persia who lived peacefully under the Parthian and Achaemenid
rulers the conversion of Constantine and the subsequent politicisation of
Christianity suddenly made the Christians in Persia look like potential
enemies. Due to Constantine's actions they were almost overnight likely to
sympathise with Rome and its anti-Persian policies. Even though this wasn't the
case, the Persian Shah, Shapur II began to persecute Christians.

It's a heartbreaking and ever-repeating cycle further
aggravated by the tensions of migrants in Europe itself.

Woefully misguided are the many American Christian commentators
who believe the Europe's problem is secularisation and this has weakened
society and made them unable to cope with evil and generate a sufficient
nationalism that will rally to deal with the threat. Whether they openly
endorse the European Right or not, their analysis certainly does and it is no
accident they all but echo the sentiments and mentality of European
Neo-Fascism.

They decry Europe's inability to reckon with or even register
the reality of evil, in this case represented by radical Islam. While it is
true on a philosophical level that many aspects of modern intellectual thought
struggle with such concepts, the real reasons for European policy are
pragmatic. They are in a race to try and get these people to integrate. The assimilation
demanded by the Right takes generations to happen and in many cases I don't
believe the Right really wants it to happen anyway.

On a practical level they need these people to integrate in
order to function within the society. Worry about the hijabs and their
treatment of women later. That's the mentality of the European politician and
technocrat. Without integration there will soon be civil war, persecution, and
horrible bloody deeds. Europe's trap is its economic system which needs workers
to maintain its lifestyle but in bringing in the immigrants will ultimately
destroy its culture and thus its lifestyle. It's a type of Faustian pact made by
a few post-World War II generations and is now being put to the test. I mean
this in the sense of it being a dangerous bargain. Their evil greed has now
unleashed a latent evil they helped to foster.

The reasons for Europe's less than hyper-aggressive stance is
not due to their failure to grasp evil but a host of other considerations. I
guess some of the Christian commentators have also missed that many of these
nations are using these attacks as pretext to implement a wide range of new
surveillance and police state measures. I notice these same commentators are
not denouncing these evils because they approve of them.

Are the Jihadists evil? Yes, they are and that can be said
without equivocation. Even if we take into account the host of considerations
that has led to this phenomenon they are still accountable for their deeds.

But how much more are the Imperialist powers that have all
but destroyed their native societies and created these terrible political and
social disparities? Are they not also evil? Do they not also share some of the
blame for creating the conditions? The moral failure here is on the part of the
Christian commentators who cannot properly identify the fact that one evil has
helped to generate other. While they celebrate the so-called Christian values
that helped to produce the British and American empires, they are blind to the
fact that these empires were and are evil, just as evil as the terrorists who
strike at innocent civilians. The Western Empires do the same, they just often
do it from a position of power and thus the blow is softened, sanitized and
often brought about through less than extravagant means and over a greater
period of time. And yet in the end they are responsible for a far greater
number of deaths and in the end, the destruction of whole societies.

Western greed and lust destroys the souls of its own
Christians who then feed off the suffering and bloodshed of their brethren.
It's a sick cycle and I am reminded of it every time I watch the financial
news, listen to Christian financial advisors talk about investing in the
markets, or hear Christian leaders advocate Dominionism.

The Christian commentators who dominate the evangelical scene
are not only blind in their assessments and flawed in their judgments but they
are actually helping to lead Christ's people astray, teaching vengeance, violence
and power instead of wisdom.

I am brought back once more to the Pakistani Christians
suffering a less than pleasant exile in Thailand. They even in their despair
have a far better grasp of Christian ethics than the fat, rich scholastics of
Christendom who belch forth an endless stream of rationalisations and
justifications for the murders of empire. They are enduring and forgiving,
forbearing and being patient. They put us to shame.

But at the very least we can speak out against and denounce
the worldly Christianity that has helped to build the empires that bring about
these conditions, these empires that exploit the poor, steal and murder. In
many cases these crimes are perpetrated against their own (non-white) brethren
in other lands.